"Agnosticism"
Disclaimer: What I'm asking in this post assumes that you're non-theistic also I'm pretty uneducated
I believe that there is no reason to be "agnostic" because saying that you would become theistic if presented with evidence or saying that you are open to the idea of god is non-practical. While it's true that there is no way of knowing if god is real or not or if anything is real, claiming to be agnostic or saying something like "I don't know if there's a magical weightless monkey standing on my head or not" has on practicality or other reason, and additionally claiming to be agnostic carries with it the idea that it is reasonable to believe in a supernatural god. If you disagree with this in any way or if you're "agnostic" and you disagree with this, why?
I believe that there is no reason to be "agnostic" because saying that you would become theistic if presented with evidence or saying that you are open to the idea of god is non-practical. While it's true that there is no way of knowing if god is real or not or if anything is real, claiming to be agnostic or saying something like "I don't know if there's a magical weightless monkey standing on my head or not" has on practicality or other reason, and additionally claiming to be agnostic carries with it the idea that it is reasonable to believe in a supernatural god. If you disagree with this in any way or if you're "agnostic" and you disagree with this, why?
Comments (75)
[quote=Thomas Henry Huxley]Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.[/quote]
What I think the question is, is how is agnosticism in this definition, any different from positivism?
Excerpt from here:
[quote=180 Proof][ ... ] given that g/G is so underdetermined as to be objectively indistinguishable from a fantasy or hallucination or rorschach blob, how can the question of finding explaining or justifying - modes of knowledge - even be raised without begging the question? To say "I don't know whether or not g/G exists" says nothing but "I don't know whether or not z$&p@ exists" - just an evasively articulate grunt, or babytalk.[/quote]
I'm agnostic about everything myself, and can't see why that implies that one accepts anything as particularly 'reasonable'. All things are possible, I'd suggest, but anything a great number of humans 'believe' is especially dubious, always, because 'reason' is a very specialised game indeed.
Have you never used the words "I don't know"?
If "no" then you would be omniscient which would be quite an awkward claim in a philosophy forum.
If "yes" then just see the similarity in the situation that required you to utter "I don't know" with the God debate.
By equating g/G with z$&p@ you're implying that g/G is meaningless which is incorrect. Of course if you use an operational definition to g/G your point holds.
What is notable is we could consider the whole g/G issue as possibly similar to demons-disease. 5 centuries ago demons were the cause of illnesses but now we know microbes are the culprit. Is it not possible then that we may locate g/G in a similar fashion?
Also microbes seem to suggest what I will call hidden worlds. If the discovery of such hidden worlds teaches anything it is to be cautious about assigning 100% certainty to knowledge.
And what about consciousness? Yes, it probably has a physical explanation but we can't deny the obvious difference between thoughts and the physical world.
You're mistaken or have misread me. 'Meaning is use', as Witty shows, so words, however nonsensical, derive or convey meaning from the context in which one uses them. Like Abracadabra ... Awop-bop-a-loo-mop alop-bam-boom ... Goo goo g'joob ... etc. Any utterance or expression can be meaningful even if it lacks informational content (e.g. I AM, I AM) or there are no facts of the matter to which it can be used to refer (e.g. round square). Like g/G. Thus, isn't it incoherent to claim whether or not one knows that "g/G exists"?
Apparently you see the question of "God" in terms of "Yes or No", with no room for doubt. Yet, like Socrates, I tend to doubt the completeness and accuracy of my own knowledge. If you claim to have the final word on the ancient mystery of "God", then you must either have some direct knowledge of his existence or non-existence, or you have faith that makes knowledge unnecessary. But, how do you know non-existence?
Theists and Atheists are Gnostics, in the sense that they claim to know for sure (by faith) that God is or isn't. But I'm not so sure; hence I'm Agnostic : A-Theistic, but Deistic, not due to black/white knowledge, but to shades-of-gray possibility.
Gnostic : relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
Orthogonaly:
You can be any combination of those things.
Do numbers exist? Does beauty/value/morals exist? Does inflation, money, value, countries exist? Physical existence is only one thing.
The rest of this is really off-topic, but sure I'll answer your questions:
Quoting ssu
Not concretely, but abstractly, where on my account concrete existence is an indexical subset of abstract existence: the things that concretely exist are the things that are part of the same abstract structure as we are, but other abstract structures besides that one (such as numbers) also exist in an abstract sense. (And number-like substructures are also part of the larger abstract structure that is our concrete universe).
Quoting ssu
Things of beauty and value exist, and judgements of beauty and value can be objectively correct, so there exist things that are objectively beautiful or valuable, but beauty and value aren't things or even descriptive properties, so existence doesn't apply to them.
Quoting ssu
Inflation is a process that occurs to money, which "exists" as a social construct, which is to say that talk about money is actually talk about people's opinions and behaviors, which definitely exist. People do in fact treat things as money, and the value of it to them does decrease as the supply of it increases.
I already covered value more generally above.
And countries are physical places, which definitely exist.
Whether we can know whether god exists or not is something we should remain agnostic about.
Point of order - monotheism is not the belief in a numerically singular 'God' who is on the same plane as other 'Gods' however it has inevitably come to be understood this way.
Generally, in modern thinking, 'God' is identified with religious thought and practice, as the object of worship for church-goers. Partially due to the historical origins of monotheism, which displaced but at the same time was bound up with ancient pantheistic cult religions, 'God' is often depicted in pantheistic terms, as this is a form which existed in the popular imagination and persists (i.e. as some version of 'Jupiter'), even though it is quite incredible from a modern perspective.
However a philosophical conception of God is a different matter. Here 'God' is seen as the first principle, ground of being, or origin of all. And note that this 'origin of all' doesn't necessarily refer to something 'existing before' the so-called 'big bang', but the origin of all at this very moment in time. Due to being attached to, or identifying with, the sensory domain, beings 'fall' in to the so-called physical domain of the transient and the corruptible. Philosophical spirituality comprises the 'awakening' from this identification with the transient to the 'true nature' which is at once within and also beyond every compound particular.
So a common mistake or misunderstanding is to equate 'God' with 'some existing phenomenon' or to depict 'God' as 'existing' in the sense that objects, forces and people do. In reality 'God' does not exist at all in that sense, but due to the dominance of naturalism, culture has lost the metaphorical vocabulary to understand the nature of the issue. Hence the proliferation of speculative threads on this and many other forums about this question.
In any case, what you take your God or gods to be like is besides the point. "At least one god" was just meant to be inclusive of polytheists, who are also still theists.
But beside that, if you want to characterize your conception of God as being so metaphysical that it's not accurate to say that he "exists"... then congratulations, you don't disagree with atheists. That's actually what made me stop calling myself a pantheist (in the accurate sense of thinking the universe itself is God). I realized that I was just slapping the label "God" onto something that even atheists believe in (the universe itself), and so not really asserting anything that differentiated me from an atheist, so I just decided to stop creating needless confusion and just admit to being one.
If "the first principle, ground of being, or origin of all" is all you mean by God, without any particular claims about what that thing / those things are like, then you don't necessarily disagree with atheists about anything, who also have first principles, grounds of being, and origins of all in their various philosophies, they just don't say "...and that thing is God" at the end.
Not actually at all, because the examples just show how complex existence is.
You even yourself mention the divide of 'abstract' and 'concrete' with numbers. Objective beauty? I would think that would be something subjective. Again a different, but important juxtaposition. Inflation isn't something that just refers to money, there can be for example asset inflation, which is a different phenomenon and of course in physics inflation has another meaning. How real are these phenomena? Yet here is again a new way of looking at these issue as being social constructs. And a 'country' isn't physical, because it isn't just a landmass as a continent, it's much more a social construct and an institution, something in our minds. Yet you say that they, countries, definitely exist. Hmm.
In my view it's simply naive just to define existing to be something physical as it leads in philosophy to materialism/physicalism, which are quite shallow ways to model the World. They usually lead people down the reductionist rabbit hole which sidelines the abstract as just as our imagination. Yet we truly need the abstract, we need concepts, to understand the World around us.
Hence the question is that if God doesn't exist as physical material object, does God then exist in the abstract, does it exist as an social construct, a concept, something subjective, a mindset or mentality? Now I don't know about any religion that wouldn't say that you have to believe in God and it's a matter of faith and believing. No religion says that God is found by a proof. That it's a matter of faith ought to ring a bell that this isn't a question of proving existence of something physical and concrete.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Can you provide some examples?
To say that God exists only abstractly and not concretely is only to say that you have some definition of a thing you've named "God" that you can logically infer things about from your definition, but that that thing is not instantiated in the universe we are a part of, or in any other way connected to it.
To say that that God exists only as a social construct is only to say that people behave as though something they call God exists.
To say that God exists only subjectively is only to say that people think or feel that God exists.
None of these things seem to be what your ordinary run-of-the-mill theists are talking about, the kind of people who think there is a God who created the universe/Earth/humans and intervened in various ways throughout history and has some other realm like heaven where it can transport some part of a human being like a soul after death, and interact meaningfully with that soul in heaven.
None of that stuff makes any sense if by "God" you just mean one of the above things. All of those usual theistic trappings hinge on it being objectively true that some kind of God concretely exists, in a way that actually has effects on the universe. And even atheists won't deny that the above things "exist" in their respective senses -- obviously people think or feel that God exists, they behave as though there is such a thing, and some of them define what they take that thing to be and infer things about it from that definition -- so if that's all anyone meant by "God", there would be no distinction between theists and atheists at all.
Which brings us to...
For a trivial example, the big bang is the origin of all on a naturalistic atheistic view grounded in modern scientific models. Would you say that the big bang is such peoplesâ god then?
No, it's a contingent fact.
What do you think it is contingent upon? I mean, insofar as it is thought as the origin of all things, what kind of thing do you think it could be contingent upon?
Now that is a metaphysical question.
That was my suspicion all along. :up:
Quoting 180 Proof
However if we're to put g/G in the context of a language game I believe it makes any and all claims about g/G immune to criticism. Am I right? If so then you really can't accuse anyone of incoherence.
So everything that is abstract are only words? That sounds like classic straightforward physicalism to me.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Exactly. But I was talking about reasons for agnosticism, not about the overtly dogmatic reasoning of theists / atheists.
I don't think so.
Word usages are normatively regulated by language-games, and so much so that violating those contextual norms subjects such word (mis)usages to criticism (warrant?).
e.g. "(My) g/G, (the) ultimate mystery, is [described by scripture, dogma, speculation, etc] ..."
Using words in one language-game according to the norms of another, especially incommensurable, language-game is also subject to criticism (coherence?).
e.g. "I do not, or cannot, know whether or not (the) ultimate mystery aka 'g/G' exists."
Either g/G is '(the) ultimate mystery' and therefore nothing true, or warranted, can be said about it (re: apophatic theology) or g/G is not '(the) ultimate mystery' and whatever is said about it is subject to demands of warrant (i.e. onus probandi) which, to date, has never been satisfied anywhere by anyone. In both cases, there isn't any coherent there there to be agnostic about (that's rationally distinct from weak atheism).
What about family resemblance? Does it not afford an opportunity for export/import of words from one language game to another to allow meaningful interpretation of one game in terms of another?
I never said I wasnât a physicalist. And my view on abstract objects isnât quite as simple as that (that would be nominalism, whereas my view is mathematicism) but in any case abstract objects donât have any concrete effects on the world weâre a part of â that would make them concrete.
Quoting ssu
Theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism purport to be views about the same thing though: God. If theyâre talking about different conceptions of God, then someone could simultaneously be a theist and an atheist, a gnostic and an agnostic, all of them at the same time in different senses. Before one can say which of these positions one takes on the existence of âGodâ, one had to decide what âGodâ means. And if you take âGodâ to mean something different than what theists and atheists disagree about, then youâre just going to confuse everyone when you state your position on it.
Theists generally mean something or another that actually has some effect on our world, and thatâs what atheists disagree with them about, and what normal agnostics are unsure of, whether they lean theist or atheist. Atheists donât deny that e.g. love exists, so if someone just means âGodâ as âloveâ then thatâs only a disagreement of words. Atheists donât deny that the universe exists, so if a naturalistic pantheist like I used to be just means âGodâ as âthe universeâ, then thatâs also just a disagreement of words, which is why I stopped doing that. Likewise with all the other senses (abstract, constructivist, subjective) of âGodâ we talked about above.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Exactly what I said.
Christian theists are atheists when it comes to the definition of g/G provided by the ancient Greeks and Romans, but theists when it comes to the definition provided by Christians - hence they are Christians. Atheists are atheists when it comes to both definitions. We need definitions of what it is we are taking about, or else we'd just be talking past each other, and never be able to make a coherent claim of our belief or disbelief of that thing. Any discussion about belief/disbelief of g/G, without a definition of g/G, is a pointless discussion.
That tells a lot then.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Really?
You don't think our actions that are can be based on abstract ideas don't have any concrete effects?
Quoting Pfhorrest
But they aren't talking about that. It's about the existence of God, not what God is. And as I've done now for a long time, I've tried to explain that existence isn't such a straightforward thing as it is to a physicalist / materialist.
Our actions do, the ideas by themselves donât. You wonât find a number 3 somewhere out in the universe doing things on its own. You will find people doing things in various threefold ways. And even atheists agree that people do things in ways that employ their ideas of God, all they disagree with theists about is whether youâre going to find a God out there somewhere doing things on its own.
Quoting ssu
Iâm not clear what youâre saying here. Iâm saying that if by âGodâ you mean something that only âexistsâ in some non-concrete non-objective sense, abstractly or socially or subjectively, then youâre not even talking about the same thing that most theists and atheists are arguing about. Youâre not taking a position on the same issue and saying you donât know if that thing weâre talking about does or doesnât exist; youâre apparently just affirming that some other thing entirely exists.
And that is a paradigmatic non-answer.
Apparently that whereof we cannot speak is not doing it's proper job in producing an appropriate silence.
What god(s) are these agnostics agnostic about? Are they agnostic when it comes to the ancient Greek gods?
~George Byron
Quoting tim wood
A rational big cat, I hope.
[quote=tim wood]But I've never noted a comment (indeed, avoidance if called to characterize it) from you on the efficacy - the practical utility - (whether or not at all times well-used or employed) of ideas associated with so-called knowledge of g/G - even if the "knowledge" is just no knowledge at all and arguably cannot be.[/quote]
As per Kant: g/G as a regulatory idea? Unneeded, I think, a solution looking for a problem; or just a(n anti-anxiety) placebo-fetish for magical thinkers. Many 'ideas' with negative truth-value (e.g. "all you need is love") , or without truth-value (e.g. "rubber soulmating" :joke: ), have some practical utility; they pale in comparison, however, to 'ideas' with positive truth-value which have practical utility (e.g. love risks betrayal or hurt), and even those without practical utility (e.g. the chemical formula for love: C8H11NO2+C10H12N2O+C43H66N12O12S2 dopamine, seratonin, oxytocin).****
[quote=tim wood]Perhaps you hold that whatever the virtues and benefits of believing - e.g., "We believe...". - are so much better got by other means that the baby of religion is not really distinguishable from its bathwater, and so out with it all. Yes? But what might those other methods be, especially granted that human kind, if it's reason you have in mind, does not work entirely, or entirely well, on that basis?[/quote]
The least maladaptive basis, except for all others tried so far, seems: We know ... rather than merely believing.
"I do not want to found anything on the incomprehensible. I want to know whether I can live with what I know and with that alone. ~Albert Camus
"I donât want to believe, I want to know. ~Carl Sagan
Sure, I agree with Kierkegaard, that to be human (i.e. "thrown") is always to leap, but into complexity (& perplexity, or inquiry) rather than mystery (& anxiety, or glossolalia), ...
âWe have to continually be jumping off cliffs and developing our wings on the way down.â ~Kurt Vonnegut
... i.e. bricoleuring Ă la Neurath's boat. A principle of courage (& point of honor): It's Always Better To Know That We Don't Know Than To Not Know That We Don't Know And Yet Believe We Do.
Sapere aude!
:death: :flower:
****(Btw, no Beatles-fans were harmed, I hope, in the making of these examples. :victory:&?)
Quoting TheMadFool
No ... I suppose there are cases - examples? - but in the main I don't think so. The notion of 'family resemblance' is, as I recall, simply a(nother) reminder that words have as many disparate meanings as they have discrete uses, or distinct contexts of usage; that is, 'definitions' are stipulative & circumstantial (i.e. conventions) and not essentialist (i.e. natural kinds or rigid designators).
On a pragmatic basis that 'existence of anything' is a concept which stands or falls of the basis of its utility to humans, then 'God exist' for theists who have a use for it, and 'does not exist' for atheists who do not.. On that basis, the term 'agnostic', at best means 'undecided as to the utility for them of the God concept', and at worst, 'sitting on the fence'.
But ontological and epistemological 'language games' will no doubt continue ad nauseam !
Quoting Pfhorrest
My only quibble with this, Pfhorrest, is that atheism, as I understand it, is about Theism, or claims about (i.e. predications of) g/G, and not about g/G itself, whereby critical rejection or negation pertains narrowly to incoherent or false theistic concepts and not expansively to all nontheistic concepts. In this regard, given that Atheism is a 2nd order critique of Theism (i.e. 1st order statements about g/G), a/gnosticism with respect to theistic g/G makes no sense where Theism is shown, at best, to make no sense. Yeah, I'm aware this interpretation of Atheism is non-standard, but nonetheless I find it indispensable for avoiding these positions being conflated, or reduced to falsely equivalent antithetical beliefs when, in effect, Theism [ object ] concerns g/G whereas Atheism [ meta ] concerns claims entailed, or presupposed, by Theism.
I don't see Agnosticism as a cop-out, but as a Conditional & Complementary belief, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. My general philosophy is summed-up in the BothAnd Principle*1.
From the evidence so-far produced by Science, I have inferred that the Big Bang, Physical Laws, and Initial Conditions were not accidental, but were the Direct Effect of some First Cause. Since that Causal Agent logically existed prior to the Big Bang, it is also beyond the scope of space-time Nature as we know it : hence, Super-Natural. But since I have no direct knowledge of anything supernatural, I must limit my belief in the necessary existence of the Prime Mover with a dose of doubt appropriate to the magnitude of the question.
Hence, I believe there must be some kind of Creator, but my knowledge is limited to observation of the Creation, and is subject to being mis-interpreted. So, while I am literally an A-Theist regarding the humanoid deity of world religions, I must remain A-Gnostic regarding any specific characteristics of the First Cause, beyond the functional requirements of the Philosopher's God of Deism*2.
*1 BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
*2 Conditional belief in Deity :
"[i]However, at this point in time, science is pointing toward a designer / creator behind the universe / life. The complexity of the DNA code is one example. The fine-tuning of the universeâs cosmological constants is another. What science is hinting at is that something, or someone, appears to have a hand in designing the cosmos as we know it, in order for life to exist. While the same science points toward a Big Bang event, what is unknown is what caused the Big to go Bang.
Physics states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Unless you suspend the laws of physics, then what equal force in a ânonexistent universeâ could possibly have caused the Big Bang? Did something come from nothing, or, did a transcendent force (God), that we do not yet comprehend, serve as the catalyst when supposedly nothing else existed?
In the meantime, deists are firmly planted in their belief, and with good reason![/i]"
Excerpt from Quora post by Christopher Finch : https://www.quora.com/profile/Christopher-Finch-5
It is essentially theological fence-sitting. But it is a form of dogma. An agnostic must first believe, without evidence, that a god is possible before he reserves judgement on whether a god exists.
.
The agnostic's facade of humility and caution conceals a smug superiority: you fools believe that God exists, or doesn't exist; I'm above all that. Mind you, as smartarse Nosferatu annoyingly points out, agnostics have to believe in the possibility of God.
How rude! Give the man a chance! He's got his own website and everything!
Ooooh!
For example; I am agnostic toward the belief in the physical phenomenon of White holes. I could say that until evidence mounts that white holes do in fact exist; I believe Dark Star Theory to be the more likely theory as this theory factors in Dark matter and Dark energy and can potentially explain the existence of some or all black holes as the Newtonian opposite force of what we call Stars. The missing equal and opposite reacrion.
However without veering too far away from the discussion; I'd say that agnosticism is just putting your beliefs in a box so no one can know, including yourself if the beliefs are dead or alive. So think of God like Schroedingers cat whenver someone says they are agnostic. Their beliefs are just in a box and we don't known if they are alive or dead. They are in a superposition.
I'm sorry my wording offends you. So perhaps I should disclaim. I said that Science (Big Bang, Information Theory, Quantum Theory, etc) "hints" at design. In fact, that's why Astronomer Fred Hoyle scoffed at the radical notion that the universe had a beginning, which to him implied (hint, hint) a creation event --- which tried his patience no end --- so he coined an absurd term to describe it : "Big Bang".
Since then, Atheists have come to terms with the fact that space-time seems to have suddenly appeared from out of nowhere, and have looked for alternative explanations, such as an un-caused eternal Multiverse, for which they have no evidence. Since the origin of the Singularity is logically prior to the Bang, its "cause", as you pointed out, cannot be a physical action of the sort that scientists normally look for. Instead, it must be a metaphysical First Cause as postulated by Philosophers over the ages.
Regarding signs of "Design", you may be thinking of instantaneous creation as in the Myth of Genesis. But my personal myth is of gradual "Intelligent Evolution" instead of "Intelligent Design". I can go into much deeper detail, if your patience has any elasticity remaining. :smile:
Yes. For me, as an Agnostic Deist, the First Cause of our world is like a Black Box. I can see what came out of it, but I don't know what's inside. So, beyond labeling by its apparent function, world creation, I make no further claims about the mysterious Jack-in-the-Box. I am more concerned with the implications of creation in reality, than in the unknown "Creator" --- which I also call "G*D" for purposes of communication.
I have seen this stated. But again, I don't think it is necessary, especially in the case where one notices that knowledge changes over time and some things that are ruled out have turned out to be the case. I am sure some agnostics are smug. I don't think it necessarily follows from their beliefs (which are epistemological, at least in the main on this issue).
1) Given the nature of the universe and what I know about it, it is possible X happened or exists. I see know that the basic ground for such a thing is there. Whether it does exist or did happen is contingent.
2) Given that I am a limited being with limited knowledge, I cannot rule out that X happened or exists.
These are very different types of claims. In fact the second is much more an acknowledgment of limitation rather than a claim about what is.
The important thing is, you've found a way to feel superior to even them. :wink:
(Seriously it's just a joke, and not even an original one, so more like an xkcd reference really...).
In my myth of Intelligent Evolution, the design intent is implemented via a process of gradual construction, not an act of instant magic. That's why I imagine the hypothetical Creator as a Programmer. Yes, the First Cause is outside of evolution. The process is directed like a computer program from the bottom-up, via logical rules and initial conditions. And the ultimate output is specified only in general terms. So I assume the journey is more important than the destination. Perhaps G*D is playing a video game. :smile:
You ask a lot of questions. I have a lot of answers. Here's just a sampler :
Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution â limited only by local restraints â to the original programmerâs goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf
The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Lol. (Not enough jokes on here!)
I navigate the rocky shoals between evidence and speculation, between fact & faith, in the same way physicists do with such far-out notions as Dark Matter. They logically infer the existence of some undetectable locus of gravity, but so far have found no hard evidence for their hypothetical WIMPS. They know what Dark Matter does, but they still don't know what it is.
Likewise, Darwin proposed a detailed theory to explain the Origin of Species. But, to date, scientists have not observed the emergence of any new species. Which is to be expected, because speciation takes thousands of generations. Nevertheless, biologists have concluded that "nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution". That's a profession of faith.
Unfortunately, since my hypothetical First Cause is defined as outside the limits of space-time, I have no reason to expect to find any hard evidence to support my theory. I know what G*D does, but not what it is. Nevertheless, I have concluded that nothing in Reality makes sense, except in the light of Ideality. Which is the the axiom of Enformationism. That's my profession of (provisional) faith -- subject to new information of course. :smile:
PS___I also delineate the boundary between proven science and my unproven fantasy of creation by labeling it a Myth, which may be "true" metaphorically, if not literally.
Enformationism : a worldview or belief system grounded on the assumption that Information, rather than Matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be a successor to the 19th century paradigm of Materialism, and to the ancient philosophy of Spiritualism.
But by the same token the agnostic should also remain agnostic about his agnosticism. Given that I am a limited being with limited knowledge I cannot rule out that we cannot know whether X happened or exists. Perhaps we can know.
As an example of a common human notion I am also willing to accept the existence of âgodâ as a representation of some capacity of the human psyche and/or as a fundamental symbolic form of âhumanityâ as a whole and some unknown yet explicit sense of âbettermentâ for humanity.
Then there is panpsychism, which I personally find to be a mostly faulty concept because it is mostly referring to some âotherâ sense of consciousness - which would mean it is a âconsciousnessâ we cannot be conscious of (thus why call it âconsciousnessâ?)
There are a variety of agnosticisms, some being simply factual descriptions of the person's beliefs/lack of beliefs, some epistemological and these latter in a variety of forms.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAgno
I think some of these need not in any way be coupled with smugness. In fact, if anything, some strike me as the opposite.
I agree. That's why I call my Universal Mind theory : Enformationism. Panpsychism was a reasonable hypothesis centuries ago. But we now know more about how human consciousness differs from the minimal awareness-of-the-environment that allows single-cell organisms to survive.
Nevertheless, physicists sometimes speak of sub-atomic particles "feeling" the strong or weak forces. But they use the term "feel" metaphorically to describe inputs & outputs of energy (which is a form of Information). However, some New Agers take them literally, and imagine atoms having conversations about the goings-on in their neighborhood, and working together to give humans psychic powers -- as in "The Force" of Star Wars. For which, I see no non-fiction evidence.
Enformationism is based on the ubiquity of Information in the universe, including its role in Human Consciousness. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/352187
Yes, we can know some things that we can't detect with our senses, but that are reasonable.
I call myself an Agnostic, because I don't know G*D directly --- via the physical senses, or by scientific measurements. But I can and do know something about the First Cause by rational inference. Gnosticism is basically Knowledge of non-sense by Faith. So I am not a Gnostic. G*D is not a matter of faith to me --- no need to worship --- it's a matter of inferred fact, not observed fact. Therefore, I am an Agnostic Deist.
The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agnostic in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Iâm jumping in here with a little trepidation as Iâm likely in way over my head in this conversation - so please indulge my amateur efforts.
We briefly discussed this in another thread, so continuing that conversation. I donât see myself as fitting into any of these categories. When I use the word âGodâ, I am referring to a character who appears in various works of mythology. Like many fictional characters, God has supernatural powers; more specifically, while God somehow (in a manner that is never explained) resides in an imaginary non-physical spiritual realm, God has the ultimate super power ability to (among other things) create and have complete control of the physical universe that we live in.
So to ask â Does God existâ is no different than asking âDoes Harry Potter existâ. My response to these questions is âWhy are you asking me if fictional characters exist?â The very definitions of the words make the question incoherent. Itâs somewhat analogous to asking (to use well known examples) âDoes quadruplicity drink procrastinationâ or âDo colorless green dreams sleep furiously?â
Furthermore, unlike Harry Potter, the fictional God does not even physically exist in the fictional world - so the character is doubly incoherent (assuming that multiple nonsenses multiply and are not exponential :smile: )
Iâm aware of two schools of thought on this topic (there may be more but Iâll limit myself to the ones I sort of understand). One school of thought says, in essence, âDammit Jim, quadruplicity does not drink procrastinationâ. If I'm following, this would be a strong atheist position. The other approach - which I agree with - says that you cannot assert truth values to or coherently discuss nonsense sentences. Iâm not seeing where this fits into one of these categories. So here I'm adding one more bullet point to your list:
I could be mistaken but I think this somewhat aligns with either Ignosticism or theological noncognitivism.
Inferential knowledge is still knowledge though, so would you not still say that you know that God exists? Like, if someone claimed that he did not, would you not have some argument, appealing to those inferences you've made, to try to convince them that in fact he does?
I would say that fictional characters do not exist, at least not in the concrete sense of existence that we're implicitly talking about, the kind of existence that we apply to ordinary things in contexts outside of philosophy. (I hold that fictional characters are a kind of fuzzy abstract object, and that abstract objects "exist" only in a different sense than the ordinary concrete one).
In any case though, the position you're describing does still fit into the category of weak atheism, which is simply the category of everything that is not theism. That's the point of distinguishing weak and strong atheism: weak atheism is the broad category of anything that isn't theism, while strong atheism is a narrower position within that range. It's a little like referring to locations as "terrestrial", "extra-terrestrial", and "martian". By definition everywhere that isn't terrestrial is extra-terrestrial, but being martian is only one subset of being extra-terrestrial. This analogy is imperfect because it's not like Mars is the anti-Earth or something, so maybe colors make a better analogy: every color is either white or non-white, but black is just one specific non-white color; despite being the opposite of white, not everything non-white is black.
I would say that the position your describing fits the label of Ignosticism too, though. Theological noncognitivism is something a little different, the claim that religious language is not even trying to be descriptive but is merely emotive, as seen in expressions like "God is love".
Thanks for the reply. I may be mis-reading you, but there seems to be an inconsistency. Quoting Pfhorrest
Quoting Pfhorrest
Ignosticism falls into that first definition, but not the second. I'm OK with saying that I'm not a theist. But I would not say that I don't believe in any gods. I consider that to be an incoherent position.
Perhaps you could say that there are two broad categories - theism and non-theism? Then weak/strong atheism, ignosticism, agnosticism, etc would all fall under the broad category of non-theism?
Someone is a theist if and only if they believe(G).
Thus someone is a non-theist if and only if they do not-believe(G): if it is not the case that they believe(G) like a theist would. This is also what "weak atheism" means: just non-theism. Ignostics, most agnostics (there are some agnostic theists, who believe but don't think they know), and so on all fall into this category.
But that's a different thing from someone who does believe(not-G). That's what "strong atheism" means. Anyone who does believe(not-G) obviously also does not-believe(G), but the reverse isn't true; not everyone who does not-believe(G) also does believe(not-G).
All kinds of modal operations work like this; that's the main deal of modal logic. Just because it's not-necessary(P) doesn't mean it's necessary(not-P). Just because it's not-obligatory(Q) doesn't mean it's obligatory(not-Q). Just because one does not-desire(F) doesn't mean they desire(not-F). And just because one does not-believe(G) doesn't mean they believe(not-G).
But for all of these, either you function(object) or you not-function(object), so in the case of believe(G), either you do or you do not. But just saying you do not-believe(G) doesn't mean you believe(not-G).
Quoting Pfhorrest
Firstly, this does not appear to be a proposition. If we were to say "G" is the proposition "Qwerty exists", it would be reasonable to ask for a definition of "Qwerty", and if no coherent definition is provided you would be justified in saying that there is nothing to believe or dis-believe.
However, even if you are allowing these sort of statements into your system, then you have to go into some sort of tri-valued logic. So in addition to believe(G), not-believe(G), believe(~G), it is reasonable add believe(undefined-G) into your approach.
I'm OK with being labeled as non-theist (I have no theistic beliefs), but I feel like your category schema is forcing me to take a position that I do not agree with.
That said, I think my other objection is more of a practical affair. This fine tuning of definitions works in a philosophical discussion, but it has little real life value. If you were at, say, a family gathering or in some casual social context - you are going to get blank stares if you try to explain this stuff - that and likely people will avoid you for the rest of the evening :razz: . The average person has basic notions of atheism (deny that God exists) and agnosticism (not sure) - so if it comes up in conversation I will stick with calling myself an Ignostic - it's pretty easy to explain.
Also - instead of saying that religious language is emotive, I prefer to say that it is a type of poetry. I suppose there's a lot of overlap between the two.
I'll give you the last word.
Unfortunately, "knowledge" has different meanings in different contexts. For example, Christian Gnostics believed that they had privileged access to God, that others didn't. It's such kind of "knowing by faith" that Huxley was reacting to. Since I have no objective scientific evidence to prove the existence of G*D, I must remain Agnostic, even though I believe that inference is reasonable. It's a fairly strong belief, but it could be changed by strong evidence to the contrary.
Many astronomers and cosmologists "believe" in an infinite Multiverse, because it offers a "natural" explanation for the physics and initial conditions of our world. But I think if you challenged them, they would admit that their belief is more of a hope than a fact. They currently have no evidence to give substance to the hypothesis. So, like them, I am officially agnostic about my postulated "super-natural" entity, although I use that belief as an axiom in my personal worldview. That's because, unlike Multiverse, at least the G*D hypothesis offers an explanation for Qualia & Metaphysics, that Materialism & Physics must ignore as irrelevant.
If you ask a sincere person "what matters to you", most would answer with qualitative feelings (Love) instead of quantifiable material objects (supermodel arm candy). :smile:
2. Agnostic carries the idea that itâs reasonable to believe in a supernatural God.
3. There is no reason to be agnostic. (MP, 1, 2)
Your argument is outlined as above. Premise 2 shocked me at first since Iâm an agnostic and never thought about this idea before. But I still want to reject this premise for the following reasons. First, some agnostics just lack belief in God, which means that they donât know who God is and what kind of things God will do. Take me as an example. I was born in China where there are no dominating religious beliefs. I didnât think about and talk about God at home, in public, and in school, let alone having any belief in God. In this situation, I was not even presented with evidences in favor of and against God. How could I think itâs reasonable or unreasonable to believe in God? Second, agnostics do not carry the idea that itâs reasonable to believe in a supernatural God(take this God as traditional God with omni features). I would rather say they are uncertain about whether itâs reasonable to believe in a supernatural God on the basis of the evidences in favor of and against God. A case in point will be that there is a homicide case where you are presented with the evidences in favor of and against the suspect A. The agnostic position in this case will be neutral, indicating uncertainty in whether itâs reasonable to believe the suspect is the murder. You cannot say being neutral implies that beliefs in suspect as the murder is reasonable. When you claim that itâs reasonable to believe the suspect commits murder, it means that you are already persuaded by the evidences in favor of him as murder, which equals to the theistsâ position with respect to Godâs existence. Therefore, premise 2 is false and the argument is unsound.
Bit of a long convolution, but it makes sense.
However, please consider that it is reasonable to believe in a supernatural god. Not practical, and not conducive to anything positive or useful, but reasonable. Because the existence of god can't be proven, and equally the non-existence of god can't be proven. If somethin is not foolproof deniable, then it is reasonable to believe in it. And the deniability of god is not foolproof. Therefore it is not unreasonable to believe in god.
Mind you, in my opinion only an unreasonable person would believe in god (not to misconstrue: the unreasonable person can be very smart, intelligent and knowledgable; even good-looking and charming). But it's everyone's personal perogative to believe or not believe in god, without a philosophical penalty.